...and look where that got us...Hitler and the extinction of millions of Jewish people.

Lowly people hate it, and express it through trying to lower what they see, high people enjoy it or feel fine with it.

If you were in fact speaking above as trying to grow, to become more than we are, I can agree with that. But I'm not sure that's what you're doing here.You do realize, Jakob, I'm pretty sure, that there are those so-called superior people who have that attitude because contrary to what they think, they feel the exact opposite. It's called a defense mechanism. It's also called narcissism which often is based on a sense of inferiority.

By lowering the noble notion of Value so violently, the lowly reveal themselves as, objectively, scum.

This is only my thinking here, but it seems to me that with a statement like that, any person lowers the notion of Value.It discredits one. Are we not all entitled to our perspective, Jakob? Is the one you're speaking about so scum-like to you?

Why does someone so have to lower another in order to place their own self on a pedestal?

None of this is meant to convince anyone of anything; it is meant to clarify the master-slave dynamic.

lol Oh, you certainly have done done, Jakob. I'm just not sure who is the master and who is really the slave in your dynamic viewpoint.

At one point I will cease sacrificing energy to this clarification, but I enjoy seeing scum outlined as precisely what it is. I enjoy its writhing in its self-knowledge.

Arcturus Descending wrote:MagsJy, I don't understand what you mean by the phrase "when they are created elsewhere" within this context but I don't think it's the drugs which bring on those epiphanies.

I did not say the drugs alone caused the epiphanies, but they certainly fuel them.

Who knows if they (the drugs) may be the final push (I'm totally opposed to all drugs except for healing and for terrible pain, like medical marijuana) but I don't see epiphanies in that way. I don't intuit that they are some kind of magical things just waiting in the wings. I think that they come about after months or years of observing, listening, studying, et cetera. They may be waiting in the wings of our unconscious minds ALSO which gather intel but which we don't see on the conscious level.

Final push? try driving force!

What is philosophy - love of wisdom and truth. They both take time. I'm not so sure that the great philosophers would like to think that their efforts/struggles/pains and hard work to accomplish what they have would be so watered down by the effects of drugs.

Oh well!

The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

Fixed Cross wrote:I think friendship can only exist between equals, or between two people that have decided that one is the master and the other the slave. Many friendships of stupid people are arranged like that. The former case is what I refer to as a philosophical state; it requires not only that one knows oneself, but also the other. And to that end, one needs to not only know oneself but also master oneself.

But Pezar is certainly not your equal. So does that make him your slave? It seems like you're indulging him (joining him in pointless juvenile pursuits) rather than trying to raise him to be your equal (as a lover of wisdom). You're also unintentionally embarrassing him with threads like "What Pezar Said"

You evidently have no friends.

How does that follow( is evident)? So you do consider Pezar to be your equal?

As a pillar of rising smoke did my angel condescend and appear, standing without reserve on the exhausted banks of infinite sorrow.

I just don't understand how if we see value, someone becomes scum? Isn't that a strong word to use? That being said, not wanting to be hypocritical, I imagine there are some who I can look on as scum. But why would you associate someone with scum who just comes from a different perspective from you or maybe didn't have the same breaks as you did/do and who is just struggling, let's say as a result of his/her war experience?

What is happening to you??

I suppose that I'm just growing horns and a tail or maybe I always had them. The Satan in me is thriving that's all.

“How can a bird that is born for joySit in a cage and sing?” ― William Blake

PB - Yes, of course. I cant endure unequals around me. Havent you noticed that about me?

He's the most powerful resisant Ive encountered since Sauwelios. Who is a long time close friend. Pezer has taught me as much about myself as I have taught him about himself; rather, our extremely pressure-laden project has caused both of us immense stress and erupted often in violent arguments, the most violent ones Ive had with anyone except Sauwelios (friends argue far more violently than adversaries, as the stakes are higher); this has taught disciplined.

If you take from the videos that Pezer is less than I am in rank, if thats what you take from the thread where we write down phrases and make memes out of them, you are in an alternate universe, you see nothing of us that is real.

Pezer does not take shit. He is so immensely proud that he can actually see what I am.

I just don't understand how if we see value, someone becomes scum? Isn't that a strong word to use?

If youve seen the lengths Turd has gone through to try to make me feel pain and shame, youd see "scum" is mild. He has lost a part of his humanity and takes that out on me. It's fucking horrifying to imagine his inner world. But Ive tried all along to be polite to him and to engage him in sensible things.

He's just convinced me that he is fundamentally incapable of decency.

That being said, not wanting to be hypocritical, I imagine there are some who I can look on as scum. But why would you associate someone with scum who just comes from a different perspective from you or maybe didn't have the same breaks as you did/do and who is just struggling, let's say as a result of his/her war experience?

I call scum those who inflict deliberate harm on people evidently out to bring light and love. Every sane person here knows I am arrogant but a very generous and bright guy only out to make peoples lives better.

Everyone sees Turs is out to ruin peoples days.

How is he not scum? Why do we have the word scum if not to designate Turd?

What is happening to you??

I suppose that I'm just growing horns and a tail or maybe I always had them. The Satan in me is thriving that's all.

I think friendship can only exist between equals, or between two people that have decided that one is the master and the other the slave.

As for the first part, I don't think that's necessarily true. They may not be equal in certain things, like looks, intelligence, et cetera but as long as they see their selves as equals where it counts, friendship can go there.

As for the second part,

between two people that have decided that one is the master and the other the slave.

Well, that is certainly not a view which came from nowhere. lol That's a sado-masochistic dynamic but certainly not a friendship.That's more a symbiotic relationship - or a co-dependency...not the ideal friendship. The so-called master needs the slave just as much as the slave needs the master. I daresay that in some cases the master needs the slave even more to feel superior. The slave may eventually rebel against this wonderful master just as those slaves which are our emotions can eventually rebel against us.

Aside from that, you may be having unconscious fantasies of an S&M relationship, Jakob. Be very very careful there.

“How can a bird that is born for joySit in a cage and sing?” ― William Blake

Fixed Cross wrote:PB - Yes, of course. I cant endure unequals around me. Havent you noticed that about me?

He's the most powerful resisant Ive encountered since Sauwelios. Who is a long time close friend. Pezer has taught me as much about myself as I have taught him about himself; rather, our extremely pressure-laden project has caused both of us immense stress and erupted often in violent arguments, the most violent ones Ive had with anyone except Sauwelios (friends argue far more violently than adversaries, as the stakes are higher); this has taught disciplined.

Equals keep each other in check. Sauwelios is certainly your equal. He is able to refine your position, and you, in turn,are able to build back off of that.

If you take from the videos that Pezer is less than I am in rank, if thats what you take from the thread where we write down phrases and make memes out of them, you are in an alternate universe, you see nothing of us that is real.

Point me to one video or thread(where Pezar is speaking) where he shows that he understands your position and is able to elaborate on it in an equally elegant manner. From everything I've seen and read, he could at best be called a disciple (and not a very disciplined one at that).

Pezer does not take shit. He is so immensely proud that he can actually see what I am.

Being proud and offering resistance is good, but doesn't necessarily make one an equal. And you can talk Pezar up all you want, but that just proves you're loyal, not that he's your equal.

As a pillar of rising smoke did my angel condescend and appear, standing without reserve on the exhausted banks of infinite sorrow.

I think friendship can only exist between equals, or between two people that have decided that one is the master and the other the slave.

As for the first part, I don't think that's necessarily true. They may not be equal in certain things, like looks, intelligence, et cetera but as long as they see their selves as equals where it counts, friendship can go there.

I mean only equals in power. All have different power-attributes. But where friends measure is a general strength of will, which also translates to intelligence, wit, courage, ambition, etc. Pezer and Sauwelios are the most courageous men Ive personally met. Capable and Parodites are also courageous in a way that makes me regard them as pure heroes, as fit for the company of gods.

This is my morality. I just seek friends, equals. And I'll reshape the world to make that happen if I have to. And I do.

As Parodites said; "If you are not commanding in this world you are being commanded." I want only friendships with those who thoroughly understand this. Anyone else, I could not trust with my life. And that is what friendship amounts to and is tested by, that kind of trust.

If a man does not know that trust, he is less of a man for it.

As for the second part,

between two people that have decided that one is the master and the other the slave.

Well, that is certainly not a view which came from nowhere. lol That's a sado-masochistic dynamic but certainly not a friendship.

When I was in the filmacademy I saw a couple of friendships like that. Yes, surely that is far from ideal. It's friendship for lesser people. Theatre students also tend toward such travesties. They still feel like they're friends. But obviously it's not up to my standard, nor would it produce philosophy.

That's more a symbiotic relationship - or a co-dependency...not the ideal friendship. The so-called master needs the slave just as much as the slave needs the master. I daresay that in some cases the master needs the slave even more to feel superior. The slave may eventually rebel against this wonderful master just as those slaves which are our emotions can eventually rebel against us.

Aside from that, you may be having unconscious fantasies of an S&M relationship, Jakob. Be very very careful there.

Neither are they unconscious, nor are they strictly fantasies. But I wont be exposing them here. It has little to do with philosophy...

Fixed Cross wrote:PB - Yes, of course. I cant endure unequals around me. Havent you noticed that about me?

He's the most powerful resisant Ive encountered since Sauwelios. Who is a long time close friend. Pezer has taught me as much about myself as I have taught him about himself; rather, our extremely pressure-laden project has caused both of us immense stress and erupted often in violent arguments, the most violent ones Ive had with anyone except Sauwelios (friends argue far more violently than adversaries, as the stakes are higher); this has taught disciplined.

Equals keep each other in check. Sauwelios is certainly your equal. He is able to refine your position, and you, in turn,are able to build back off of that.

Good thing you're able to perceive that.

If you take from the videos that Pezer is less than I am in rank, if thats what you take from the thread where we write down phrases and make memes out of them, you are in an alternate universe, you see nothing of us that is real.

Point me to one video or thread(where Pezar is speaking) where he shows that he understands your position and is able to elaborate on it in an equally elegant manner. From everything I've seen and read, he could at best be called a disciple (and not a very disciplined one at that).

Our talk videos provide no such intensity. When were in the middle of a real argument neither of us is exactly reaching for a camera. Just read Pezers positions here (as Filmsnob) and on BTL. How is he not resisting what I propose?

Pezer does not take shit. He is so immensely proud that he can actually see what I am.

Being proud and offering resistance is good, but doesn't necessarily make one an equal. And you can talk Pezar up all you want, but that just proves you're loyal, not that he's your equal.

He's loyal to me because I'm the most powerful person he knows. I'm loyal to him because he's the most powerful person around. We're very clear about that. Of course we share certain values and aims -- but on this level, power and values are truly aspects of the same thing.

I do have rank on him philosophical-technically and scientifically, I feel I have philosophical and scientific rank on everyone alive including Zizek as well as the guys at Cern (so I could not give less about what a dude like Satyr tries to tell you) but he outranks me in qualities such as aristocratic outlook, straightforwardness, conciseness, important forms of bullshit-detecting; and there is a very important set of qualities that pertains to personal life in which I find in this guy the first one who actually has a spine.

Trust that very little of what goes on in any friendship makes it to video.

I could fairly say that Pezer is the only one I ever knew that talks down on me when I'm actually being weak. Most others mistake my greatest strengths for weaknesses, which causes a contempt so steep in me that Ive come to regard the human race as very heterogenous in quality and no longer consider each human an entity per se; one needs to earn this in my eyes, by displaying degrees of integrity, consistency, honesty. If not, I dont trust that such a person is able to really experience him or herself; I believe rather it is a function of some general pathos that goes around like the flu.

A friend, to me, needs to exist. Most people don't. They are ephemeral phenomena relying for ground on truer valuings. You'd faint in vertigo if you could see from my position. From where Im standing it is no longer wise to look all the way down. Still, I am braver than I am wise.

That is why you guys still have the pleasure of Fixed Cross -bashing. I know that behind it is often genuine curiosity and ambition. So maybe my courage is just a radical, long term wisdom.

To claim that you are superior in philosophy and science to anyone alive is not crazy?

Grandiose delusions (GD) or delusions of grandeur are a subtype of delusion that occur in patients suffering from a wide range of psychiatric diseases, including two-thirds of patients in manic state of bipolar disorder, half of those with schizophrenia, patients with the grandiose subtype of delusional disorder, and a substantial portion of those with substance abuse disorders.[1][2] GDs are characterized by fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent, wealthy, or otherwise very powerful. The delusions are generally fantastic and typically have a religious, science fictional, or supernatural theme. There is a relative lack of research into GD, in contrast to persecutory delusions and auditory hallucinations. About 10% of healthy people experience grandiose thoughts but do not meet full criteria for a diagnosis of GD.

Instead of showing (that he can think, argue, rationally defend his position, etc) he is telling (that he can think, argue, rationally defend his position, etc when cameras are off.)

I never saw him engaged in a serious thought. 99.99% of the time he is either spamming this board with non-philosophical stuff (e.g. what pezer said), spamming it with pseudo-philosophical stuff (e.g. the philosophy of animals, can you believe it, now even animals have philosophy) or he is talking about himself (how great he is, how others don't understand him, etc.) What kind of serious philosopher does that?

I have nothing but contempt for this man.

I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.-- Mr. Reasonable

Now compare what perpetualburn said with what Heidegger says about "direct dialogue":

"He [Sauwelios] is able to refine your [Fixed Cross's] position, and you, in turn,are able to build back off of that."

Thus in a quite recent Facebook discussion in which both Fixed Cross and myself participated (the third participant was a loyal defender of the status quo), I said:

::

It's obviously not true that Thales only had his mind as a tool. He also had his senses, and the tools of modern science are basically just tools that amplify the senses (e.g., microscopes and telescopes). Now I was aware that there's another challenger than history to the premises of philosophy--namely the exact sciences--, but contrary to the challenge of history, I don't take that challenge seriously. I think it's very naive to think that "a chemistry lab [can] help [us] figure out what all this stuff is actually made of". For all their high-tech tools, modern scientists seem to have lost their mind. Daniel Dennett, for example, does not even seem to understand the problem of qualia! It makes me suspect that he is himself a mindless zombie.

Against quantum mechanics, I pose quale organics. Mystical? I think it's the opposite--although, even if we retain the notion of a universal human nature, we must say that it points to "a humanity that, though it belongs to man as man, is not open to every man, since what he is necessarily he is not necessarily unless he knows that that is what he is necessarily." (Benardete, The Bow and the Lyre, page 87.) It seems that only the fewest have the courage to see human nature, indeed nature as a whole, for what it is. Nietzsche, by the way, rigorously used so-called "scientific" method to establish the nature of nature, as I wrote in that thread I linked to:

"I think Nietzsche beats modern 'scientific' man at his own game by arriving at the doctrine of the will to power out of 'the conscience of method' (Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 36). The instincts and taste of modern times, according to him, 'would even rather bear with the absolute coincidentiality, indeed the mechanistic nonsensicality of all occurrences, than with the theory of a power-will transpiring in all occurrences.' (Genealogy of Morals, Second Treatise, section 12.) Nietzsche conquers the modern conquest of nature by arguing convincingly that the nature of nature is conquest."

The conquest of nature was originally understood as the conquest of non-sense and chance, of coincidence. But coincidence is now--with Nietzsche--seen as the coinciding, the clashing, of wills to power. But even more than most human beings, most other beings are hardly aware of what they really are. As Aldous Huxley puts it: "[In The Tibetan Book of the Dead,] the departed soul is described as shrinking in agony from the Clear Light of the Void, and even from lesser, tempered Lights, in order to rush headlong into the comforting darkness of selfhood as a reborn human being, or even as a beast, an unhappy ghost, a denizen of hell. Anything rather than the burning brightness of unmitigated Reality--anything!" (The Doors of Perception.)

But the philosopher's cruel nature impels him to realize the true nature, not only of himself, but of all other people as well--and also of all beasts, all plants--all "things"... Apparently they want to be ruled, rather than having to rule themselves, take responsibility themselves. The philosopher takes the responsibility for the existence of all beings, for his whole universe. He first makes them truly exist: for the unexamined life is not only not worth living, it does not even exist... But examining existence in this way means finding it to be alive--alive and kicking. This is why it suffices for the eternal recurrence to be a myth. A myth is something positive: you don't mythologize what you don't deem worthy of monumentalizing. What matters is that the philosopher deems his whole universe worthy of being eternalized. [...]

"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)